Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

    In working on my personal top 12, I discover that another of my potential candidates is ineligible. Merely the greatest high jumper ever, Valeriy Brumel!!!!!

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

      OK, my bleating provoked a reaction. I'm now reliably informed that the 2-medal stricture applies only to this original class (of 24).

      (I still think they're wrong excluding Brumel from the first 12, but that's a matter of personal opinion)

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: which of these doesn't belong?

        Originally posted by gh
        I have no problem with Wang as a Hall of Famer, but for her (and da Silva) (and maybe Bikila and Cuthbert) to be in the symbolic first class is indeed unsettling.
        I would have thought the only woman to have won Olympic golds in 100m, 200m and 400m - with world records at 60m, 200m, 220y and 440y - plus being a teenager when she won her first three Olympic gold medals - would have been a no-brainer for the first class category.

        5 of these 10 were in my Top 20 favourite athletes picks for our poll (though surprisingly not Cuthbert lol)

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

          not sure I'd make Cuthbert even first among my Aussie women (think Strickland-delaHunty). And if they wanted an Oceanian, way top of the heap is Snell (but he throws off the sex balance)

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

            Originally posted by gh
            OK, my bleating provoked a reaction. I'm now reliably informed that the 2-medal stricture applies only to this original class (of 24).

            (I still think they're wrong excluding Brumel from the first 12, but that's a matter of personal opinion)
            I think the WR requirement is what really throws this off. No Allen Johnson, even after an Olympic gold medal, four world outdoor titles and three world indoor titles? No Carolina Kluft? And virtually no women sprinters, middle distance runners or shot/discus gals that have had careers in the last two decades?

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

              Originally posted by Ned Ryerson
              Originally posted by gh
              OK, my bleating provoked a reaction. I'm now reliably informed that the 2-medal stricture applies only to this original class (of 24).

              (I still think they're wrong excluding Brumel from the first 12, but that's a matter of personal opinion)
              I think the WR requirement is what really throws this off. No Allen Johnson, even after an Olympic gold medal, four world outdoor titles and three world indoor titles? No Carolina Kluft? And virtually no women sprinters, middle distance runners or shot/discus gals that have had careers in the last two decades?
              those 2 aren't even the GOATs at their events but where's Irena ??
              i deserve extra credit

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

                I can't say so definitively, but I'm guessing the WR requirement is also one that applies only to this first class.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

                  In other words, Kelly Holmes won't get in before Daley Thompson.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

                    Holmes in the HOF? I don't see her as even on the radar (like Bob Beamon--another who doesn't belong--she's basically a one-trick pony).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

                      Originally posted by gh
                      not sure I'd make Cuthbert even first among my Aussie women (think Strickland-delaHunty). And if they wanted an Oceanian, way top of the heap is Snell (but he throws off the sex balance)
                      Yes, I'd prefer Strickland first too (Cuthbert still being alive may have been a factor?). I imagine Snell will be the next Oceanian elected.

                      Of the other Aussies, I think only Marjorie Jackson (and Strickland) meet the initial criteria. So no possibility yet of past superstars like Landy, Elliott or Ron Clarke joining the club.

                      Overall, I'd prefer it if they concentrated on early athletes initially. The tennis hall of fame features lots of recent (rather ordinary in some cases) champions but has overlooked many higher-achieving stars of days gone by.

                      At first I thought recent athletes had an advantage of numerous World Championships, but I guess they have the disadvantage of WRs in many events being an impossible dream.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

                        I guess they never heard of Parry O'Brien either.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

                          Originally posted by gh
                          I have no problem with Wang as a Hall of Famer, but for her (and da Silva) (and maybe Bikila and Cuthbert) to be in the symbolic first class is indeed unsettling.
                          I am curious as to what is unsettling about Bikila. Two time Oly champ (the only legit two-time champ, according to F. Shorter), WR, and the historic context of the first African distance medalist, ushering in a new era in the sport. It would seem the combination of excellence in the most prestigious competition in the sport plus being at the forefront of a sea change in the competitive landscape is the essence of a hall of fame resume, or am I missing something?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

                            Originally posted by mump boy
                            where's Irena ??
                            Wang over Szewinska is an unfunny joke :evil: .
                            "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
                            by Thomas Henry Huxley

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

                              Bear in mind, if Wang was the Asian entry, they were not competing for the same spot.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: which of these doesn't belong? [Hall Of Fame]

                                Originally posted by gh
                                OK, my bleating provoked a reaction. I'm now reliably informed that the 2-medal stricture applies only to this original class (of 24).

                                (I still think they're wrong excluding Brumel from the first 12, but that's a matter of personal opinion)
                                If they had included Brumel would that mean no Zatopek or Nurmi?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X